Big Stone II Coal Plant totally dead!

My first year in the midwest, my first month really, I participated in a Bike rally with pinwheels taped to our helmets (I guess to symbolize wind power but looking back at pictures we looked a bit strange) to attend a hearing on the fate of Big Stone II, a coal plant that was to be built just over the Minnesota border in SOUTH Dakota. The past three years have been quite a journey for us Twin Cities organizers. We’ve seen Minnesota pass leading climate legislation, moratoriums on coal and nuclear (sorta… lots of loopholes, of course), and embrace community wind projects. But for some reason, legislators and state official struggled to make the connection between badass legislation and policy and the COAL PLANT that would be built across the border, but would provide energy to the Twin Cities. After several false alarms, seeming deaths and unbelievable rebounds, funding pullouts, permitting issues, the Big Stone II coal plant seems to have seen its last days. Today, MDU Resources Group, Inc. announced that the coal plant proposal was officially off the table. AND The best part???? The company annoucned that they’re going to be investing in wind power instead. Bomb?? hell yeah. And yes, we’ve had our hopes dashed and out hearts broken before, but sometimes celebration is called for. Much love to TEAM Minnesota, our college coalition, Youth Environmental Activists of Minnesota, and all the rest of the wonderful Midwest activists. Check out the story here!

8 Responses to “Big Stone II Coal Plant totally dead!”


  1. 1 kaibosworth Nov 2nd, 2009 at 8:33 pm

    One less coal plant we have to worry about! After three or four years of causing me ulcers, the 500-600MW coal fired power plant proposed near Milbank, SD is NO MORE! With a terse press statement released earlier today, the four developers announced that the project was over. In one last attempt at greenwashing the dirty energy project, the developers noted:

    “The project required additional participants to move forward; however none have committed…Big Stone II, a fully permitted project, had been determined to be the least-cost, environmentally sound baseload power plant for the project participants. The project’s high voltage transmission facilities were to be sized to also serve the region’s burgeoning wind energy development.”

    Interesting…I wonder why Montana-Dakota Utilities announced that it would turn to wind power instead? In any case, we have a long ways to go before halting the coal rush, but if we can defeat a coal plant in South Dakota…what can’t we do?

    For a history of Big Stone II, check out these morbidly-titled posts:
    Big Stone II loses lead developer…nail in coffin (please)?
    Could Big Stone II Be A Zombie?
    Obama EPA Overturns Big Stone II (SD/MN) Air Permit
    ACTION NEEDED: Help Deal a Death Blow to Big Stone II

    and more comprehensive coverage at MPR:
    Controversial power plant won’t be built

  2. 2 kaibosworth Nov 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    Just for clarity’s sake, the coal plant was proposed in SOUTH Dakota.

  3. 3 Ruby Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! I am so happy about this! Bring on the wind power.

  4. 4 Maia Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:18 pm

    Heck yeah Minnesota!

  5. 5 Juliana Williams Nov 2nd, 2009 at 11:47 pm

    This is HUGE! Big Stone II was the plant that never seemed to just kick the bucket. Congrats to everyone who was working on this out there. But almost more importantly I love the message it sends that the plant was abandoned because it was simply too expensive. We are winning against coal not just because we’re fighting like hell, but also because it simply does not work for our economy.

  6. 6 Matt Dernoga Nov 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 am

    Rock on!!!

  7. 7 Morgan Nov 3rd, 2009 at 7:57 am

    Excellent work. Talk about a campaign that pays off over time, with lots of hard work from different groups and tactics.

    Go MN!

  8. 8 John Nov 5th, 2009 at 12:15 pm

    Yeah wind is great but you have to realize that for every megawatt of wind you have you have to have some kind of base load megawatt to back that up. So if coal isn’t the answer what are are you going to do? Would you rather have a nuclear plant instead????

Comments are currently closed.

About Laura


Laura is an avid feminist, a senior at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn. and a loving member of MacCares and TEAM Minnesota, and serves on the Executive Committee of the Sierra Student Coalition. She studies environmental history, and is particularly interested in the intersections of gender and environmental studies in the history of Minnesota housewives. In addition to climate change organizing, she loves peanut butter, cookies, naps, cheetahs, and swarming (the most efficient mode of mass transportation!).

Community Picks